^ Until you do meet your heroes you can't really predict how you'll react.

Ha! I went to see Bob Fripp on his "Drive to 1981" tour, where he played solo Frippertronics in record stores & small venues! He played a KILLER set in a suburban record shop in Chicago, with perhaps 50 to 75 fans showing up.

At the conclusion, he excused himself to go into the back to "wash his hands," and EVERYBODY left, except for me!!

When Bob came back out, he had a huge grin, with his right hand extended, and he asked me "Did you like it?"

Well, I smiled back, shook his hand, and spent the next two hours with him (until his roadie Fred induced him to leave).

So maybe classic prog faded because most of the prog gods were too pretentious and full of themselves to embrace the fans that ultimately paid for their castles and Ferrari's?When I met Jon Anderson, he was smoking a cigarette and eating meatballs backstage... not tucked away in his crystal shrine repeating his Tibetian mantras like most would have been led to believe.

I never could figure out how some great vocalists of our time could be smokers. I mean if yor a vocalist that's your main instrument, so why the hell are you smoking?? Even GEOFF TATE was a smoker and he could sing like a mad banshee and still does. Anyway, it's such a contradiction. I don't know they get away with it because if I had a cigarette and you asked me to sing if would be god aweful. My voice would crack. Cigi's are nasty.

<div id="_dyhb23rg4374"><div id="_dyhb23rg4374">

Well he doesn't really get away, it's just that he doesn't sound too bad in spite of cigarettes. He hasn't aged as well as the late Dio who sounded very close to his 70s records right till his last gigs. Certainly, if you want to hit an open, powerful "Take hold of the FLAAAAME", cigarettes don't help. The throat should be relaxed and 'neutral' at all times; though I am not a smoker, I imagine it would cause inflammation?

It would be disgusting, but some get by and I can't imagine it helps. I'd never do it. What a waste.

I think Classic Prog faded because of the popularity of Genres like New Wave. Things just weren't the same for the most part after that. (Although I do like Moving Pictures and Discipline but they are not for everyone)

Record companies became more involved in shaping what was allowed to be marketed and played on the radio. At some point it became obvious that prog was a bit of a niche market and didn't necessarily have mass appeal. Sure, Yes and ELP and maybe a few others sold lots of albums but it was always a bit of a hard sell and the longer songs meant less airtime for other artists especially when punk came on the scene. Punk and new wave (and to a lesser degree disco)pushed prog in the background and ultimately under ground. Prog was barely visible in the 80's except to those who went out of their way looking for it. At some point, people started to become interested again when old prog albums(even obscure ones)were reissued on cd. It was still underground at this point but catalogs started to appear and then the internet happened which helped to make prog visible once again although still mainly to those who went looking for it(at least at first).

That's one reason I am glad that I wasn't alive in the 70s and barely conscious in the 80s. If I had to live through the death of prog in the 80s, I would have been very depressed.

Comparing prog to punk is like comparing a filet mignon to a mcdonald's hamburger.

first off, not only did prog die but practically an entire culture including many other music genres going strong in the late 60's, early 70's. I was in college when it happened, and I was really dismayed.

Jazz fusion saw a similar fate around 1975 or so. It was like it was too good to be true. Along came Grover Washington and George Benson, and fusion was never the same again to be replaced by what eventually came to be known as smooth jazz. And you saw the changes everywhere else and sensed that someone on high was clamping down on all innovation and creativity in music. That period from 1975-1980 (post 60's and pre MTV) was incredibly depressing for a guy like me.

And then there's lots of other things to consider. Historically, creative musical periods usually coincide with the exploitation of some new sonic potential, new instrument or technology, etc. its like the ears are hearing something totally new, and without any prior knowledge or experience with it, you have a blank slate to work on, an opportunity to define a completely new music or style. This always leads to an unusual amount of creativity. You become like an inventor, and people always hunger for something new. This happened twice for sure in my recent memory - in the 60's early 70's when electric guitar (distorted), electric piano, analog synth, mellotron, etc were exploited for the first time. Then in the 80's there were a lot of fresh new sounds and creativity when sampling, digital synths, electric drums, etc came on the market.

And then boredom sets in, people get use to the latest new thing, and they pressure you to outdo what you did the last time or else they threaten to go away and latch on to the "even newer new thing". And so it becomes more and more difficult for you to maintain that edge, sell records etc, excite, enthrall, etc. And at the same time, you have all this gear now, money invested and a commitment to put out music. You still have fans. You are trapped and probably doing what you love sure beats waiting tables! And so you continue to make music the best that you can, cashing in on your earlier success, resorting to formulas, etc and trusting that your good name will help you to maintain a decent income.

Anyway, regarding the record industry and their role in all of this. Frank Zappa once lamented about how the music industry changed so much between the early 60's and the mid 70's. It was a totally different environment. According to Frank, in the early 60's, company execs were like these cigar chomping old guys who were like "lets just put it out there and see if the kids like it" when it came to his music. In other words, they felt relatively free to experiment with something new. But by the 70's, the record companies had grown huge and cautious. Somehow they had to continue to survive and pay out all those huge salaries now, so they also went the formula approach. Execs in the 70's would tell Frank that they knew what was best for him. They dictated to him based on this formula approach. He felt hogtied. Its funny because he describes the later execs as being these hip younger guys compared to the cigar choppers, but paradoxically the hip younger guys were the ones that were afraid to put out anything really innovative.

Anyway, so I don't see what happened to prog as necessarily being a negative indictment of the genre. It was that basic cycle at work here and could be seen across the board in popular music. I suppose It could be the stage shows got more grandiose because it was felt necessary to maintain fans who were already drifting away to the next latest thing. And those shows got a bad rap and the pretentious label stuck. BTW - it always seemed curious to have punk described as some sort of alternative to prog

Thankfully today, we have the internet and a whole different environment for making and sharing music. Everything is so accessible, and we can enjoy obscure, experimental stuff that the record companies might have squashed in the 70's. Prog lives on.....do you younger guys have any idea what it was like? :) I spent a huge amount of time and effort back then hunting down obscure prog, traveling into the city (NY), combing the gloomy recesses of dingy record stores never knowing if I would succeed or fail. I remember what it took for example to find Magma, the french prog band in a record store. Today its just point and click. All that listening I never got a chance to do back then I can gloriously do now without getting off of my chair....:) Total bliss........

Looking at the latter part of the seventies. We all know Gabriel's costumes got bigger. The ELP crew got enormous. The bigger the show, the better. Did the evolve from musical experimentalism into overblown stage antics during this period cause prog's demise against the punk movement?Why would the huge show that never ends fail? Were there other factors involved that ended classic prog?

Hi Neelus,

Good question really, I have no idea and have been wondering this many times too.

One thing is true, Prog Musicians in those days most had quite a good education, came from middle to upper-class families, however they rebelled against the whole education system instead to persue a music career (girls/groupies might have played a decisive role too).

With the above said, many bands made it big and became difficult to handle considering that many were smart, also many bands decided to own their music inc. own their record label. This made the music industry nervous, therefore I think the corporate suits who owned the whole music marketing world decided that they must do something or they will lose business thus opted to invest and promote the punk artist movement knowing that their main goal was to perform and be famous (knowing how to play an instrument certainly doesn't seem to me that it ever was a priority).

Music Industry gave prog a bad name, many artists decided to dissocialize themselves from it. Also I think that many of the prog artists decided that they wanted to play live less complex music, just wanted to have fun without the stress of getting all the elements for the show and music spot on.

Anyway, regarding the record industry and their role in all of this. Frank Zappa once lamented about how the music industry changed so much between the early 60's and the mid 70's. It was a totally different environment. According to Frank, in the early 60's, company execs were like these cigar chomping old guys who were like "lets just put it out there and see if the kids like it" when it came to his music. In other words, they felt relatively free to experiment with something new. But by the 70's, the record companies had grown huge and cautious. Somehow they had to continue to survive and pay out all those huge salaries now, so they also went the formula approach. Execs in the 70's would tell Frank that they knew what was best for him. They dictated to him based on this formula approach. He felt hogtied. Its funny because he describes the later execs as being these hip younger guys compared to the cigar choppers, but paradoxically the hip younger guys were the ones that were afraid to put out anything really innovative.

Looking at the latter part of the seventies. We all know Gabriel's costumes got bigger. The ELP crew got enormous. The bigger the show, the better. Did the evolve from musical experimentalism into overblown stage antics during this period cause prog's demise against the punk movement?Why would the huge show that never ends fail? Were there other factors involved that ended classic prog?

For the same reason any other musical genre fades away: fashion, plain and simple. For a while prog was the fad, then it wasn't.

Which isn't to say that the classic bands never made any missteps or there was never any dysfunctional forces within the scene or hostile forces from without who helped end the golden age, but the point is nothing is cool forever and most musical scenes sooner or later stagnate and need to go dormant for a bit before they are revived.

first off, not only did prog die but practically an entire culture including many other music genres going strong in the late 60's, early 70's. I was in college when it happened, and I was really dismayed.

Agreed.

aldri7 wrote:

... Jazz fusion saw a similar fate around 1975 or so. It was like it was too good to be true. Along came Grover Washington and George Benson, and fusion was never the same again to be replaced by what eventually came to be known as smooth jazz. And you saw the changes everywhere else and sensed that someone on high was clamping down on all innovation and creativity in music. That period from 1975-1980 (post 60's and pre MTV) was incredibly depressing for a guy like me.

Agreed. And I think that MTV pushing George Benson and the softer "Easy Listening" folks, had a tendency to wash down the quality of the music. However, I can also say, when looking at KTYD in Santa Barbara, that the biggest issue is that too many folks in radio were not interested in the music at all, but the other things that were around it ... which was a lot of dope, a lot of women, lots of goodies and stupid stuff ... and other things that "impresses" the younger fans. Creativity was no longer the issue ... it was the "fame" that mattered most!

aldri7 wrote:

And then there's lots of other things to consider. Historically, creative musical periods usually coincide with the exploitation of some new sonic potential, new instrument or technology, etc. its like the ears are hearing something totally new, and without any prior knowledge or experience with it, you have a blank slate to work on, an opportunity to define a completely new music or style. This always leads to an unusual amount of creativity.

And this is the part that is hard for folks to see when they post today about their favorite metal band ... seeing it from a historical perspective ... and gets lost in the shuffle of the "fan" thing, and "popularity" thing. Thus, it makes for a much more difficult comparison relationship between the earlier days' progressive music and more modern pieces of work.

aldri7 wrote:

... Frank Zappa once lamented about how the music industry changed so much between the early 60's and the mid 70's. It was a totally different environment. According to Frank, in the early 60's, company execs were like these cigar chomping old guys who were like "lets just put it out there and see if the kids like it" when it came to his music. In other words, they felt relatively free to experiment with something new. But by the 70's, the record companies had grown huge and cautious. Somehow they had to continue to survive and pay out all those huge salaries now, so they also went the formula approach. Execs in the 70's would tell Frank that they knew what was best for him. They dictated to him based on this formula approach. He felt hogtied. Its funny because he describes the later execs as being these hip younger guys compared to the cigar choppers, but paradoxically the hip younger guys were the ones that were afraid to put out anything really innovative.

In some ways, the comments work, but Frank is not quite a good example, in that he never once paid attention to any of them, but the difference was just about right. But it made no difference for him, although I did think that he enjoyed the more commercial side of his work that eventually made him a more mainstream artist and more accepted than he was prior to his album that "made it".

aldri7 wrote:

Anyway, so I don't see what happened to prog as necessarily being a negative indictment of the genre. It was that basic cycle at work here and could be seen across the board in popular music.

But the thread, for example, even makes the suggestion that the "cycles" can not exist, or continue, or change ... like music history never happened and no one never heard of it before, and that is very much ... what "kids" are about many times ... and it's ok ... because they can (sometimes) create a lot of music that rivals the history ... and that is what happened to those days!

And then Woodstock buried it all in garbage! And MTV glorified even more garbage!

Edited by moshkito - February 11 2013 at 13:15

... none of the hits, none of the time ... now you know what the art is all about! www.pedrosena.com

That was the question we kept asking in Santa Barbara, since I was near radio, and the "move on" became the fame and greed is good generation instead of good music?

See where that takes us all? Nowhere.

The only thing there was to "move on" off of, would be the flower in your hair bs and the over rated dope thing ... though it went on to kill a lot of folks that would have helped cement the generational artistry! Instead ... it was gone ... how appropriate and interesting that it happened that way ... so much easier to make money that way and not pay these famous people any more! And prices that the record companies do not want to work with ... so, something cheaper and newer is likely to get more attention, to help the Beatles look older and out of time and place!

In the end, what I got tired of, was the media onslaught that all of us were stupid stoneheads, and that all the women in my generation were just sluts ... and I got tired of that attitude ... but the cynicism did not die ... it continued in disco (picking up girls and getting sex was still there!) ... and then punk (picking up girls and getting sex was still there!) ... and then Michael and color (picking up girls and getting sex was still there!) ... and then ... .

The more things change, the more they stay the same ... haha ... the only thing that changed is t-shirt today, and pants hanging out yer butt tomorrow! ... big deal ... music is the same!

... none of the hits, none of the time ... now you know what the art is all about! www.pedrosena.com

I think all three of those albums were released in 1980. So technically they were probably written in the 70's!

Genesis of course fell apart... Rush never made another great prog album. Crimson did some fantastic stuff later on.

Yes is not really a great Prog band without Steve Howe and Wakeman.

I just think it is very odd that nearly all of the great Prog bands fell away from their roots and strengths as soon as the 80's arrived.

Giant for a Day?Cured?We Can't Dance?A?I can see your House from Here?

I do think Deep Purple made a respectable record in the 80's (Perfect Strangers) What would Zeppelin have done in the 80's? Maybe that is good that didn't happen.

Rush never made another great prog album

I'm sorry but have you ever heard of Signals, Grace Under Pressure, Power Windows and Hold Your Fire

I'm with Surrealist here, Moving Pictures was the last decent Album by Rush - Signals was just short commercial trash compared with the majesty of the four/five previous releases....and because of that I've not bought another Rush effort since...don't think I'm missing anything.....(unless they have sneaked in a 2112 like track somewhere since)...

Rush have a fascinating history that to their credit was never just about their seventies albums when you compare them to other bands such as Yes , Genesis and ELP who didn't retain the same intensity and level of artistic merit that Rush had in that God forsaken decade called the eighties. In general I prefer the sleak streamlined and often powerfull approach they had from Permanent Waves to Power Windows compared to their seventies stuff when they were seemingly trying to be a heavier guitar based version of ELP,Yes and Genesis rolled into one. 2112 is quite fun at times and I would concede Farewell To KIngs is a masterpeice but I am nowhere near as keen on Hemispheres (excepting the wonderful La Villa Strangiato). I would strongly argue that Rush best period was 1980 to 1985. After that they made two more outstanding albums (Counterparts and Vapor Trails) but I digress.

Rush were one of those band that actually benefited from the demise of classic prog as it allowed then to truly become themselves and stop trying so hard to be a 'prog band' .Some bands need that. The problem was that there were few other bands as good as Rush. Possibly some gave up during the carnage of the punk era. Could being Canadian have helped them? Was there actually a punk scene in Canada??!

I read somewhere once where the early punkers thought that all the theatrical rock of the late seventies (bowie, glam, prog, etc) was gay. :) They may have lumped prog in with all this other stuff and dismissed it all as being too effeminate for their tastes. They wanted to return heterosexuality to rock :)

I don't share this view and its only what I heard....but it seemed most of their ire was directed towards glam rock, with prog getting caught in the crossfire. I don't know..

I read somewhere once where the early punkers thought that all the theatrical rock of the late seventies (bowie, glam, prog, etc) was gay. :) They may have lumped prog in with all this other stuff and dismissed it all as being too effeminate for their tastes. They wanted to return heterosexuality to rock :)

...

I think there might be a bit of truth to that ... but it won't last 5 minutes.

However, there is a side of the artistic scene in Europe, not just music, where being bi, or at least having tried the other side, is almost a mandatory rite of "graduation" ... and I can not think of an area, other than literature, where the gay thing was actually glamorized for way longer than this rock/glam thing, because it helped "free" the internal animal and artist. It became a symbol of "freedom" of expression.

This was a huge thing in the 20's, 30's and 40's and you can go from Anaiis Nin to Henry Miller to the French scenes right after it and such ... and even as far as Burroughs, Hesse and Genet ... when all hell broke loose. I doubt many folks in this board can handle even reading the first 50 pages of "Our Lady of Flowers"! Rock music is not even that "flowery" or that powerful and impressive! It's just another colored song ... and advertising to tease you with nothing behind it ... !!! It may have a pretty body, but it also has an ugly person to go with it! Of course, this also happens in our midst ... we would never want to suggest that we are any different!

A lot of the punk thing, was not about "expression", because many of them do not have any! So to speak. But they also had a great point, in that we were taking for granted everyone else, because we now were looking at everyone that looked gay or bi-sexual ... as being more of an artist ... and thought that anyone else in any art, wasn't good enough ... and rock music, or pop music, are WAYYYYYYYYY bigger a fad ... than just about any other group o artists! Even my sister in Paris, has been had issues with this, by the way!

But confusing this with "classical prog" is a bit scary, but to suggest that no one in the prog circles had ever known or learned or was not connected to many of these art scenes, is the same thing as saying, we're all naive, and stupid!

Edited by moshkito - February 13 2013 at 08:34

... none of the hits, none of the time ... now you know what the art is all about! www.pedrosena.com

I read somewhere once where the early punkers thought that all the theatrical rock of the late seventies (bowie, glam, prog, etc) was gay. :) They may have lumped prog in with all this other stuff and dismissed it all as being too effeminate for their tastes. They wanted to return heterosexuality to rock :)

...

A lot of the punk thing, was not about "expression", because many of them do not have any! So to speak. But they also had a great point, in that we were taking for granted everyone else, because we now were looking at everyone that looked gay or bi-sexual ... as being more of an artist ... and thought that anyone else in any art, wasn't good enough ... and rock music, or pop music, are WAYYYYYYYYY bigger a fad ... than just about any other group o artists! Even my sister in Paris, has been had issues with this, by the way!

But confusing this with "classical prog" is a bit scary, but to suggest that no one in the prog circles had ever known or learned or was not connected to many of these art scenes, is the same thing as saying, we're all naive, and stupid!

No, I don't deny sexual orientation issues in music (seemed Bowie was pretty open about it). Personally, my ears are color blind and sexual orientation blind. In other words, I don't care. I mean, the music is all that matters. So I'm not suggesting when I say "I don't share their (the punkers) point of view that I disagree that gay culture was a part of the rock scene I'm talking about. I just disagree that anyone should feel that rock "needs" to be heterosexual as opposed to any other orientation. And since I was never a fan of punk rock (I'm posting here, not on a punk site), clearly if they were putting themselves and their music out there as being better or more legitimate than what they perceived as being "gay" rock, then I'd have a problem with that :)

On the other hand, if the theatrical rock music suffers at the expense of costumes, makeup, overblown stage shows etc, or maybe it doesn't suffer but just isn't as inspired as it could be, then any attitude that comes with it to the effect that gay's are artists and everyone else isn't good enough - well, I vote with my ears.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum